William borrows a company Vehicle.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Sandhurst, Berkshire
Age: 57
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
William borrows a company Vehicle.....
Just seen this on Sky... sorry if it's already posted elsewhere.....
But surely any serving officer could do this?????
But surely any serving officer could do this?????
Last edited by scudpilot; 16th Apr 2008 at 17:21. Reason: english is my 2nd language
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Wouldn't that be "William Borrows, a company vehicle"?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the RAF insists it was a legitimate training exercise to teach William how to fly over water.
There we are, we fly over the coast and then keeping the aircraft S&L we fly over the sea.... tricky isn't it but I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Spheroid, you neglected to perform your Coasting Out checks which ensure that the aircraft is prepared to fly over water in safety. You consequently were unsafe, you've failed your sortie and now you're in the sh1t.
I'm getting sick to death of media muppets and others pontificating on Chinooks ops that they haven't the first f-----g clue about. If you don't know what you're talking about do the decent thing and STFU.
I'm getting sick to death of media muppets and others pontificating on Chinooks ops that they haven't the first f-----g clue about. If you don't know what you're talking about do the decent thing and STFU.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He didn't borrow a chopper and use it as a taxi as the press headlines state. He took part as crew in a legitimate authorised training sortie and disembarked at one of the stops while the aircraft returned to base. Completely normal and not at all newsworthy.
But then SHOCK HORROR he reportedly went to a PARTY and ENJOYED HIMSELF! Immediately newsworthy! Summon the fun police! Every idiot with an axe to grind in the media, House of (very) Commons etc immediately leaps on the band wagon, including quite a few on Prune.
The general public doesn't know any better. Those posting on Prune should, chips on shoulder permitting of course.
Non event turned into holier than thou mudslinging fest by ignorami.
But then SHOCK HORROR he reportedly went to a PARTY and ENJOYED HIMSELF! Immediately newsworthy! Summon the fun police! Every idiot with an axe to grind in the media, House of (very) Commons etc immediately leaps on the band wagon, including quite a few on Prune.
The general public doesn't know any better. Those posting on Prune should, chips on shoulder permitting of course.
Non event turned into holier than thou mudslinging fest by ignorami.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky producer Lorna Ward, who is also an officer in the Army Corps, said
it's rare to allow a passenger, even military, on a training flight.
"He took part as crew in a legitimate authorised training sortie."
Right.
So why did a recently passed out (that afternoon) pilot, who leaves the RAF in two weeks time, who will not be posted to any frontline type or unit, and who will make no "return of service" need to undertake a training sortie in a Chinook (authorised or otherwise)?
I can see that it might be deemed useful and appropriate to attach him to a Chinook squadron on exercise, getting him to man the ops desk, and flying him as a co-pilot and as an extra loadie on a few sorties actually carrying troops. At least that would enhance his military education as an Army JO.
But to undertake a flying training sortie, per se, on an operational aircraft type (as opposed to flying him on a more representative sortie) seems to be unnecessary and - in the light of the ongoing defence cuts - a disgusting waste of money.
And who are we kidding? Technically this may have been authorised as a flying training sortie, but that's a fig-leaf to cover what was a taxi service for W&H to go to a party. How often do Chinook OCU sorties include a landing in London to pick up a passenger before terminating at Bembridge?
How many other students have gone straight from their wings parade to any form of authorised training sortie that afternoon?
And why wasn't he having a beer with his course mates?
I don't especially mind that the second in line to the throne was flown, at public expense, to a private party (Though isn't that more what 32 are for? Wouldn't it have been cheaper by A109 or Squirrel?).
What grips me is that people think that the public are stupid enough to swallow this nonsense about it being a normal and legitimate training sortie. If we're going to treat the Royals differently, lets have the courage of our convictions and be honest about it, and not sink to New Labour levels of spin, deceit and trickery.
Whoever thought that this was a good idea is either afflicted with an astonishing degree of F-wittery (it was bound to attract attention) or a breathtaking degree of arrogance.
Or both.
And while I'm banging on about it, had he fulfilled the normal requirements for the award of wings?
It would be interesting to compare William's training with what is usually required for the award of wings.
Don't you have to complete EFTS and BFTS to get wings, at the moment (there was a time, IIRC, when you had to finish AFTS at Valley, wasn't there?) or get to the equivalent stage at Shawbury (Griffin?)? Wings are hard-earned and that's why they're accorded the respect they are. They imply that the wearer has qualified and is competent, and there is an inference that they have some specific competences in formation and instrument flying, etc.
And isn't there an alternative? Could he not have been awarded the PFB? What are the qualifications for that, now?
So how many hours did he fly in the respective types? Tutor, Tucano, Squirrel? (Dual/solo hours, how many sorties, did he take and pass the normal Basic Handling Test, Final Handling Test, Advanced Flying Test in any of the aircraft flown, and did he fly with a 'safety pilot' in his helicopter and Tucano 'solo' flights).
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great that he, as our future head of state, did the flying he did. It's great that he did go and look at the RAF and get an insight into how others are trained.
But if he didn't earn wings, then his being awarded them surely devalues the badge. They should be worn ONLY if won on merit.
And what's next? Perhaps a single stroll across Dartmoor and he can have a green beret and commando dagger? Or a day's classroom teaching and a tower jump and he can put up para wings? And wouldn't a DFC and an AFC look nice under those wings. Why not blur the qualifications for those, as well?
Right.
So why did a recently passed out (that afternoon) pilot, who leaves the RAF in two weeks time, who will not be posted to any frontline type or unit, and who will make no "return of service" need to undertake a training sortie in a Chinook (authorised or otherwise)?
I can see that it might be deemed useful and appropriate to attach him to a Chinook squadron on exercise, getting him to man the ops desk, and flying him as a co-pilot and as an extra loadie on a few sorties actually carrying troops. At least that would enhance his military education as an Army JO.
But to undertake a flying training sortie, per se, on an operational aircraft type (as opposed to flying him on a more representative sortie) seems to be unnecessary and - in the light of the ongoing defence cuts - a disgusting waste of money.
And who are we kidding? Technically this may have been authorised as a flying training sortie, but that's a fig-leaf to cover what was a taxi service for W&H to go to a party. How often do Chinook OCU sorties include a landing in London to pick up a passenger before terminating at Bembridge?
How many other students have gone straight from their wings parade to any form of authorised training sortie that afternoon?
And why wasn't he having a beer with his course mates?
I don't especially mind that the second in line to the throne was flown, at public expense, to a private party (Though isn't that more what 32 are for? Wouldn't it have been cheaper by A109 or Squirrel?).
What grips me is that people think that the public are stupid enough to swallow this nonsense about it being a normal and legitimate training sortie. If we're going to treat the Royals differently, lets have the courage of our convictions and be honest about it, and not sink to New Labour levels of spin, deceit and trickery.
Whoever thought that this was a good idea is either afflicted with an astonishing degree of F-wittery (it was bound to attract attention) or a breathtaking degree of arrogance.
Or both.
And while I'm banging on about it, had he fulfilled the normal requirements for the award of wings?
It would be interesting to compare William's training with what is usually required for the award of wings.
Don't you have to complete EFTS and BFTS to get wings, at the moment (there was a time, IIRC, when you had to finish AFTS at Valley, wasn't there?) or get to the equivalent stage at Shawbury (Griffin?)? Wings are hard-earned and that's why they're accorded the respect they are. They imply that the wearer has qualified and is competent, and there is an inference that they have some specific competences in formation and instrument flying, etc.
And isn't there an alternative? Could he not have been awarded the PFB? What are the qualifications for that, now?
So how many hours did he fly in the respective types? Tutor, Tucano, Squirrel? (Dual/solo hours, how many sorties, did he take and pass the normal Basic Handling Test, Final Handling Test, Advanced Flying Test in any of the aircraft flown, and did he fly with a 'safety pilot' in his helicopter and Tucano 'solo' flights).
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's great that he, as our future head of state, did the flying he did. It's great that he did go and look at the RAF and get an insight into how others are trained.
But if he didn't earn wings, then his being awarded them surely devalues the badge. They should be worn ONLY if won on merit.
And what's next? Perhaps a single stroll across Dartmoor and he can have a green beret and commando dagger? Or a day's classroom teaching and a tower jump and he can put up para wings? And wouldn't a DFC and an AFC look nice under those wings. Why not blur the qualifications for those, as well?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on Jacko, you know better than that, surely?
I flew through the London helilanes doing simulated or real pickups and dropoffs at London Helicopter Landing Sites on numerous occasions on AFT and OCU (and regularly thereafter). I also have often had deadheading passengers on trips, be the aircrew, blunties, pongos or matelots.
STOP PRESS - sometimes they even get off at an en-route landing site that is in some way convenient for them! Maybe in their subsequent off duty time they have a few beers with their mates. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
The rights and wrongs of Wills' RAF famil and wings issue have been debated ad nauseam already. In precis, you're wrong.
How often do Chinook OCU sorties include a landing in London to pick up a passenger before terminating at Bembridge?
STOP PRESS - sometimes they even get off at an en-route landing site that is in some way convenient for them! Maybe in their subsequent off duty time they have a few beers with their mates. HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!
The rights and wrongs of Wills' RAF famil and wings issue have been debated ad nauseam already. In precis, you're wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have a problem with Wills using the aircraft at all - on the contrary, I'm all for it. However...
it's not that easy to justify the use of a Chinook, especially when the SH boys are suposedly hurting so bad at the moment, is it?
it's not that easy to justify the use of a Chinook, especially when the SH boys are suposedly hurting so bad at the moment, is it?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko - What Wills did is nothing out of the ordinary - some of my best nights out/weekends away have been as a result of training flights of some type or another... I bet there are very few military aviators who can honestly say that they have not taken part in a training flight which has resulted in an over-nighter somewhere.
Wrong.
Wrong
Jealousy?
Ridiculous statement with a splash of jealousy thrown in?
Winco - you are 100% correct - there is a major shortage of helos in-theatre... However, you still need some back in the UK to train both new crews and crews about to go out on rotation.
What grips me is that people think that the public are stupid enough to swallow this nonsense about it being a normal and legitimate training sortie. If we're going to treat the Royals differently, lets have the courage of our convictions and be honest about it, and not sink to New Labour levels of spin, deceit and trickery.
but that's a fig-leaf to cover what was a taxi service for W&H to go to a party.
It would be interesting to compare William's training with what is usually required for the award of wings.
And what's next? Perhaps a single stroll across Dartmoor and he can have a green beret and commando dagger? Or a day's classroom teaching and a tower jump and he can put up para wings? And wouldn't a DFC and an AFC look nice under those wings. Why not blur the qualifications for those, as well?
Winco - you are 100% correct - there is a major shortage of helos in-theatre... However, you still need some back in the UK to train both new crews and crews about to go out on rotation.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NOTTINGHAM
Posts: 758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko does have a point, however.
In my 39 years of aircrew life, I had many an enjoyable weekend away as the result of a 'training sortie' - we called them rangers on the FJ fleet.
However, I had completed advanced flying training, was fully qualified on type, had completed an OCU and was operational on my squadron.
Having got his wings that afternoon, on one of the shortest pilot courses ever and without having done AFTS and a Chinook conversion course, HRH was NOT learning how to fly over the 'oggin! We ALL know that of course.
So please don't anyone try to pretend that it was something other than what it was - a training flight for the qualified crew that was arranged to take in a few ports of call that happened to suit the boys' itinerary for a weekend stag party on IoW! Nothing more, nothing less and nothing wrong with it either as the crew undoubtedly benefitted from the (allegedly) £15K that was spent completing it. Wills and his brother would have been no more than pax with the royal prerogative to have a seat up front for some of the time.
What's the hoohaa about? But Jacko does make a very good point - tell the truth and stop the spin!
Foldie
In my 39 years of aircrew life, I had many an enjoyable weekend away as the result of a 'training sortie' - we called them rangers on the FJ fleet.
However, I had completed advanced flying training, was fully qualified on type, had completed an OCU and was operational on my squadron.
Having got his wings that afternoon, on one of the shortest pilot courses ever and without having done AFTS and a Chinook conversion course, HRH was NOT learning how to fly over the 'oggin! We ALL know that of course.
So please don't anyone try to pretend that it was something other than what it was - a training flight for the qualified crew that was arranged to take in a few ports of call that happened to suit the boys' itinerary for a weekend stag party on IoW! Nothing more, nothing less and nothing wrong with it either as the crew undoubtedly benefitted from the (allegedly) £15K that was spent completing it. Wills and his brother would have been no more than pax with the royal prerogative to have a seat up front for some of the time.
What's the hoohaa about? But Jacko does make a very good point - tell the truth and stop the spin!
Foldie
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko:
You shoot down your own argument with the words you use... "Imply" and "inference" indicate clearly to the reader that there is no guarantee of the competence/ies to which you refer which is absolutely accurate. That being the case, Wills is entirely entitled to his wings and the remainder post is therefore reduced to jealous whining.
It's people like you who, because they aren't benefiting from something decide it must be stopped despite how many others it may disaffect. Back when I was in we'd have applauded the lad for getting out and having a good time. Now, because of your, (and others), petty jealousy, someone will change the rules so that no-one can cadge a lift on a "training flight" and get dropped off somewhere convenient. These things are called "perks" and as you erode the perks you erode morale exponentially. In these times when morale is at a premium our servicemen and women need all the "bennies" they can get, because, god knows, they deserve them but you will still bitch, moan and complain about something that really you have no business complaining about and end up depriving them.
It's the way of society today... "Someone has something I don't so I'll complain and deprive them of it". When all is said and done no-one has anything "special" any more. You are a sad reflection of that society.
They imply that the wearer has qualified and is competent, and there is an inference that they have some specific competences in formation and instrument flying, etc.
It's people like you who, because they aren't benefiting from something decide it must be stopped despite how many others it may disaffect. Back when I was in we'd have applauded the lad for getting out and having a good time. Now, because of your, (and others), petty jealousy, someone will change the rules so that no-one can cadge a lift on a "training flight" and get dropped off somewhere convenient. These things are called "perks" and as you erode the perks you erode morale exponentially. In these times when morale is at a premium our servicemen and women need all the "bennies" they can get, because, god knows, they deserve them but you will still bitch, moan and complain about something that really you have no business complaining about and end up depriving them.
It's the way of society today... "Someone has something I don't so I'll complain and deprive them of it". When all is said and done no-one has anything "special" any more. You are a sad reflection of that society.
Just another erk
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Germany
Age: 77
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the revelations of MP's expenses, isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black
Liberal Democrats defence spokesman Nick Harvey MP told Sky News that RAF helicopters should not be used as a taxi service.
Liberal Democrats defence spokesman Nick Harvey MP told Sky News that RAF helicopters should not be used as a taxi service.
Last edited by ArthurR; 18th Apr 2008 at 08:15.
I have no issue whatsoever with perks for those who have "completed advanced flying training", are "fully qualified on type" and who "had completed an OCU" and were "operational" on a squadron.
None at all.
HRH is none of those things.
And I'd suggest that someone who chooses to bugger off to a civvy party on the day he was awarded his wings, rather than celebrating with his course mates, and who takes advantage of his birth to get advantages that none of those mates could obtain (and who makes little effort to be discrete about enjoying such privileges) might himself be responsible for blunting morale, a tad.
I would never deny being envious of those who wear hard earned aircrew brevets. Those who earn them properly are worthy of great respect. It's a tough process, from which many good people are weeded out, so those left standing at the end are the best of the best.
Or are of Royal birth, in this case.
My own limited UAS flying dozens of years ago does not entitle me to wings, and nor should it. But my father and grandfather did earn them, and so have many of my friends, and I do resent anything that erodes the value of their achievements.
And I do wonder whether HRH even did enough to deserve the award of 'Budgie Wings'. If he did enough to earn a PFB, then that's what he should wear, and hat's off to him. If he didn't, then he shouldn't. Whether he did or did not do enough to warrant the award of a PFB, he plainly did not do enough to earn proper Wings, and in putting them up without having earned them, he devalues the badge.
It all smacks a bit of Field Marshal Amin, awarding himself rows and rows of medals which he hadn't earned, and in that respect, it's just like giving him an AFC or two, a Green beret and a Commando beret.
You can call them 'honourary', but I fail to see much that's honourable about wearing wings which you haven't earned.
None at all.
HRH is none of those things.
And I'd suggest that someone who chooses to bugger off to a civvy party on the day he was awarded his wings, rather than celebrating with his course mates, and who takes advantage of his birth to get advantages that none of those mates could obtain (and who makes little effort to be discrete about enjoying such privileges) might himself be responsible for blunting morale, a tad.
I would never deny being envious of those who wear hard earned aircrew brevets. Those who earn them properly are worthy of great respect. It's a tough process, from which many good people are weeded out, so those left standing at the end are the best of the best.
Or are of Royal birth, in this case.
My own limited UAS flying dozens of years ago does not entitle me to wings, and nor should it. But my father and grandfather did earn them, and so have many of my friends, and I do resent anything that erodes the value of their achievements.
And I do wonder whether HRH even did enough to deserve the award of 'Budgie Wings'. If he did enough to earn a PFB, then that's what he should wear, and hat's off to him. If he didn't, then he shouldn't. Whether he did or did not do enough to warrant the award of a PFB, he plainly did not do enough to earn proper Wings, and in putting them up without having earned them, he devalues the badge.
It all smacks a bit of Field Marshal Amin, awarding himself rows and rows of medals which he hadn't earned, and in that respect, it's just like giving him an AFC or two, a Green beret and a Commando beret.
You can call them 'honourary', but I fail to see much that's honourable about wearing wings which you haven't earned.